Posted on 03/19/2017 3:37:35 PM PDT by JimSEA
Solar system could have over 100 planets with new criteria Posted on March 19, 2017 by Kathy Fey Solar System A new classification system for what may be considered a planet would result in over 100 planets occupying our solar system. 178 SHARES ShareTweetGoogleReddit
Our solar system could contain over 100 planets if a new classification system is approved.
Tech Times explains that the definition of a planet was last changed by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in 2006 when the new criteria famously demoted Pluto from the rank of a planet to dwarf planet and Kuiper Belt Object. Space objects similar in size or larger than Pluto were discovered in Pluto’s neighborhood, and the discovery of Eris, which is larger than Pluto, contributed to the new definition of a dwarf planet.
The IAU criteria for a planet reads, “a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.”
Now, a group of scientists is proposing that the definition of a planet be changed to consider the object’s shape and behavior without considering the object’s location or other bodies that may share its orbit. The team points out that even Jupiter has not totally cleared its orbit of asteroids.
The group is suggesting a definition by which a planet is “a sub-stellar mass body that has never undergone nuclear fusion.” The object should possess enough gravitational pull to maintain a spherical shape, but any other space objects present in the planet’s surroundings are of no consequence in affecting the planet’s designation as such.
The newly proposed definition would reclassify objects such as Jupiter’s moon Europa and even Earth’s moon as planets. Pluto would be reinstated as a planet as well.
If the new definition were to be accepted, the solar system’s planet count would jump from eight to around 110.
Planet is not a Scientific term subject 5o PC Science manipulation by any measure these daze.
Give it up, move on, and show some intellegence in deriving a new term to be manipulated over time, as needed, to get new Grant Money to toy with. Build your own crib and leave the rest of us alone to gaze at the sky with a naked eye as in daze of yore.
“Planet” is a science term as much as “marriage” is a religious one despite those who say it isn’t. Astronomy is a science; it is a discipline that you don’t have to be part of. You can star gaze, but Astronomy as a science can still go where you don’t want to follow. I know of no grant money being taxed from anyone to clarify a simple term. I know of no government encroachment because of it.
The definition they came up with wasn’t all that bad.
A) orbits the sun. Ok, so far so good.
B) it’s round, also ok.
C) cleared its orbit, total bs, no planets orbit is totally clear.
Get rid of C, we’ll probably end up with somewhere between 12 and 20 planets but at least it’s a definition that makes sense.
This topic was posted , thanks for posting it, thanks for reading it. I'm enjoying my end of the year check for missed topics.
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar ·
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
